Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only
This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
Kodak has reported that its business division that includes digital
cameras suffered a 49% fall in sales (compared to the same period last
year) in the third quarter of 2009. "Continued declines in consumer
spending have had significant impacts in the company's digital camera
and digital picture frame businesses," it said. The sales drop has
primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
business grew. Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.
Re: Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote in
<9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-110e43fae8bc@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:
>This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
>Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
>Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
>
>Kodak has reported that its business division that includes digital
>cameras suffered a 49% fall in sales (compared to the same period last
>year) in the third quarter of 2009. "Continued declines in consumer
>spending have had significant impacts in the company's digital camera
>and digital picture frame businesses," it said. The sales drop has
>primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>
>The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
>sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
>business grew. Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
>compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.
Has nothing to do with dSLR cameras, and everything to do with not being
competitive in compact digital cameras.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Re: Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only
Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
>
>Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
>Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
And I bet that you don't even know what those decisions were.
Tell us: did YOU invest a lot of money into digital imaging products
15 years ago? Or are you just playing armchair quarterback and
pretending that you're something other than an ignorant ***?
Re: Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only
Glen wrote:
> Is it because of the use of plastic?
<grin> I'm sure that RichA thinks so.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-110e43fae8bc@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
>
> The sales drop has
> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
revenues
doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>
> The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
> sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
> business grew.
Buisness grew ?
>Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
They *posted* it didn;t say they had a loss.
I sense a tax scam, oh look no profit so we shouldn't have to pay tax.
> compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.
Re: Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only
"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:hceqkg$aoa$1@qmul...
>
> "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-110e43fae8bc@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>
>>
>> The sales drop has
>> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>
> Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
> revenues
> doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>
>>
>> The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
>> sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
>> business grew.
>
> Buisness grew ?
>
> >Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
> They *posted* it didn;t say they had a loss.
> I sense a tax scam, oh look no profit so we shouldn't have to pay tax.
>
>
>> compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.
Put down the whisky Dave, it's not helping your typing skills.
Re: Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-110e43fae8bc@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>
>>
>> The sales drop has
>> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>
>Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
>revenues
>doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>
Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
inventions, designs, images, etc. If Kodak has a patent on a design,
and allows some other company to use that patented design for a fee,
that income is intellectual property royalty.
If the patented design is only used in a film camera, the revenue
would decline as fewer film cameras are sold by the companies that
incorporate Kodak's designs in their cameras.
I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, but let's say they have
patented a design to advance the film in a camera. Other camera
makers may pay a royalty to Kodak to use that design in their cameras.
Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only 
Linear Mode
